Wind Turbine Blade Design Optimization for Reduced LCoE, Focusing on Design-Driving Loads Due to Storm Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper aims to assess the design modifications of the blade inner structure which targeting at reducing design driving. Generally speaking, the paper is not well written and has a series of issues.

The following are my comments:

This paper is really hard to read, the authors should put more emphasis on the analysis of the logical relationships among the related references in the paragraph of the introduction. In additional, there are so much long sentences with unnecessary information, especially in the abstract and the introduction, such as:

l Line 19-24, "The in-house integrated optimization tool employed in the present study combines a servo-aero-elastic analysis tool for calculating the ultimate loads along the span of the blades and the power yield, a cross-sectional analysis tool for obtaining structural properties of the different modified blades and stresses distributions over the blade sections and a cost model of the overall wind turbine based on existing in the literature models and open data."

l Line 89-92, "A consistent and effective way to tailor the design in such a way that the damping of the edgewise modes of the idling rotor is enhanced and at the same time operational extreme loads are not seriously affected is to determine the parameters of the design problem within the course of an optimization process."

The authors should revise relevant expressions and reasonably present your work and contributions.

The Figure 2 is the same as the Fig. 1 of Ref. [10]. Three-line tables are recommended and the Figure 1 should have a higher resolution.

It is needed to number the figures better. The Figure 12 is first mentioned in line 453 while the Figure 6 is first mentioned in line 465. The Figure 9 is first mentioned in line 508 while the Figure 8 is first mentioned in line 530. The Figure 14 is discussed before the Figure 8.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The novelty of the paper is to be clearly stated.

The solved equations are to be presented.

What are the boundary conditions?

How is the wind load evaluated and implemented?

A nomenclature is to be added.

The Cross sectional analysis tool is to be described in detail.

turbulent inflow boxes and the formulation of Veers’ model are to be explained and justified.

A validation/verification of the used model is to be performed.

What are the imposed constraints for the optimization ?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for addressing this reviewer's comments. In my opinion, the revised version and the provided answers solve the main issues in the first version.

Only some comments:

The suggestion of “ Three-line tables are recommended.” means there should be a black line at the end of the tables, not only for Table 3.

Though the authors have numbered all the figures with their expected order, the relevant data and discussions are retained, such as:

l Line 545-548, "Application of material FEC reduces blade mass by 10.3% and overall LCoE by 0.82%. A marginal increase in AEP of 0.12% is also obtained which is due to the indirect twisting effect caused by FEC in normal operation."

l Line 586-589, "Application of the geometric FEC reduces mass by 3.1% and LCoE by 0.36% (substantially lower reductions than those of the material FEC). Similar to CASE A, a marginal increase in AEP of 0.18% is also obtained."

l Line 630-634, "The reduction inthe mass achieved by CASE C is 13.3%, which is more or less the summation of the reductions achieved in CASE A and B. The reduction in the LCoE of CASE C is 1.02%,slightly lower than the sum of the reductions attained in CASE A and CASE B. Similar to CASES A and B a very small increase in AEP of 0.16% is obtained."

The above data seem to come from Figure 11.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is mandatory to present the solved equations, and to explain the resolution technique with more details.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

After revision, the paper can be accepted for publication